Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3: Volume 3

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3

Language
English

Contents

Volume 3

Front matter

v3.c39.1

A History of Indian Medical Literature

v3.c39.2

VOLUME IIA

v3.c39.3

[Figure: Emblica officinalis Gaertn. Āmalakī Nellikka]

v3.c39.4

G. Jan Meulenbeld

v3.c39.5

A History of Indian Medical Literature

Volume II A: Text

v3.c40.1

EGBERT FORSTEN · GRONINGEN

v3.c40.2

Cover design: Françoise Berserik Frontispice: Hortus Indicus Malabaricus, Vol. 1 (1678), tab. 38 by courtesy of the University Library Groningen Typesetting and layout: Adriaensen & Barkhuis

v3.c40.3

This book was printed with financial support from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the J. Gonda Foundation, Amsterdam

v3.c40.4

Publication of this work was made possible through the support of the editors of Sir Henry Wellcome Asian Series, including Prof. Dr Paul Unschuld, Dr L. I. Conrad, Dr D. Wujastyk, and Prof. R. E. Emmerick, and their institutions, the Institute für Geschichte der Medizin, Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München, the University of Hamburg, and the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London. Marika Antoniw, Anne van der Spelt, Sue Hordijenko, and Mohsina Somji of the Wellcome Institute are especially thanked for their contribution to creating the camera-ready copy of the book.

v3.c40.5

ISBN 90 6980 124 8

v3.c40.6

This book meets the requirements of ISO 9706:1994 Information and documentation Paper for documents-requirements for permanence

v3.c40.7

Copyright © 2000 Egbert Forsten, Groningen, The Netherlands

v3.c40.8

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permisson of the publisher.

Contents

v3.c41.1

PART 6 Some important authors and works 13 1 Bower Manuscript 25 2 Bhelasaṃhitā 42 3 Kāśyapasamhitā 61 4 Hārītasamhitā 78 5 Mādhava 86 6 Vṛnda 115 7 Cakrapāṇidatta 117

v3.c41.2

PART 7 Authors and works from A.D. 600–1500 156 1 Authors and works from the period A.D. 600–1000 237 2 Authors and works from the period A.D. 1000–1500 239

v3.c41.3

PART 8 Authors and works from the 16th to the 20th centuries 298 1 Sixteenth-century authors and works 329 2 Seventeenth-century authors and works 353 3 Eighteenth-century authors and works 375 4 Nineteenth-century authors and works 413 5 Twentieth-century authors and works 415

v3.c41.4

PART 9 Miscellanea 421 1 Works on pākaśāstra 434 2 Works on nāḍīśāstra 492 3 Various authors 547 4 Various anonymous works 557 5 Authors and works from Sri Lanka 581 6 Authors and works on veterinary medicine 583

v3.c41.5

PART 10 Works on rasaśāstra and ratnaśāstra 593 1 Ānandakanda 602 2 Āyurvedaprakāśa 608 3 Gorakṣasamhitā 7 Rasapaddhati to Rasaratnadīpikā 642 8 Rasaratnākara 653 9 Rasaratnasamuccaya 666 10 Rasārṇava and Rasārṇavakalpa 675 11 Rasasaṃketakalikā to Rasendracūḍāmaṇi 688 12 Rasendramaṅgala to Rasopaniṣad 714 13 Various works on rasaśāstra and ratnaśāstra 739

v3.c41.6

APPENDICES 789 1 Authorities associated with formulae 791 2 References to medicine in non-medical literature 818

v3.c41.7

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA & REPRINTS 833 Addenda et corrigenda 835 Reprints 841

Part 6: Some important authors and works

v3.c42.2

The *Bower Manuscript* is named after H. Bower who, being then a lieutenant, obtained it, early in the year 1890, in Kucā from a local inhabitant during a confidential mission from the Government of India. Kucā¹ is the name of one of the principal oases and settlements of Eastern Turkestan (part of China), on the ancient great caravan route to China. The MS was found by native treasure-seekers in a stūpa close to the Ming-Öi (the “Thousand Houses”, a system of rock-cut grottos with Buddhist shrines)² of Qum Turā, about 13 (or 16) miles from Kucā, in February 1890. On his return to India, Lieutenant Bower took the MS to Simla, whence it was forwarded to Colonel J. Waterhouse, who was then the President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Colonel Waterhouse exhibited the MS at the monthly meeting of the Society on November 5, 1890, when also a note from Lieutenant Bower was read, explaining the circumstances of the discovery. After the meeting some attempts were made to decipher the MS, but they proved unsuccessful.³ However, a German Indologist, G. Bühler, succeeded in reading and translating two leaves of the MS,⁴ reproduced in the form of heliogravures in the Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.⁵ Immediately after his return to India in February 1891, A.F.R. Hoernle began to study the MS.⁶ At the meeting of the Society in April 1891, he was able to communicate the first decipherment.⁷ The Government of India sanctioned, in 1892, Hoernle’s proposal to prepare a complete edition of the text, illustrated with facsimile plates, and accompanied by an annotated English translation. The first part of the edition appeared in 1893, the second part (in two fasciculi) in 1894–95, and the remaining parts in 1897. After an interruption of several years, the Sanskrit Index was published in 1908, and a revised translation of the medical portions (I, II, and III) in 1909; the Introduction appeared in 1912.⁸

v3.c42.3

The Manuscript⁹

v3.c42.4

The term ‘Bower Manuscript’ is not strictly correct, since it is, as to size, a combination of two manuscripts, a larger and a smaller. The larger manuscript is a complex of six smaller manuscripts which are separately paginated. The Bower Manuscript is therefore, in reality, a collection of seven distinct manuscripts, indicated as parts I to VII in Hoernle’s edition.

v3.c42.5

The manuscript is written on fifty-one birch bark leaves of an oblong shape, in the form of those of an Indian pothi. The birch bark of the large portion of the manuscript is of a quality much inferior to that of the smaller portion. The hole for the passage of the binding string is placed about the middle of the left half of the leaves. This placement of the string hole and the oblong form of the leaves point to an imitation of palm leaf pothīs from Southern India by the scribes of Kucā.¹⁰

v3.c42.6

The seven parts of the manuscript are written in an essentially identical script, the Gupta script, which prevailed in Northern India from the fourth to the sixth centuries A.D. Some graphic peculiarities of the Bower MS indicate, according to Hoernle, that it was written at some time within the fourth century A.D.¹¹ Distinctive characters of the script used enabled Hoernle to distinguish four different scribes,¹² who wrote parts I–III, part IV, parts V and VII, and part VI respectively. He also arrived at the conclusion that the writers of parts I–III and V–VII were natives of India who had migrated to Kucā. To judge from the style of writing, the scribe of parts I–III originally came from the northern, the two scribes of parts V–VII from the southern part of the northern area of the Indian Gupta script. The writer of part IV may have been a native of Eastern Turkestan. All four writers must have been Buddhist monks, residing in a monastery near Kucā.

v3.c42.7

The ultimate owner of the whole series of manuscripts, whose name appears to have been Yaśomitra,¹³ must have held a prominent position in that monastery, for the bundle of manuscripts was contained in the relic chamber of the memorial stūpa built in his honour.¹⁴

Language

v3.c42.s1.1

The language in which the treatises of the Bower MS are written is a kind of mixed Sanskrit, i.e., a mixture of current literary Sanskrit and a Sanskrit with a varying proportion of prakritisms. The influence of Prakrit is far more pronounced in the more popular treatises on divination and incantation in parts IV–VII than in the more scientific medical treatises of parts I–III.¹⁵

Contents

v3.c42.s2.1

Parts I to III, the three medical treatises of the collection, comprise a total of 1,323 verses and some prose;¹⁶ almost all the stanzas are written in three metres, the śloka, triṣṭubh, and āryā; the śloka predominates, taking up about seventy percent of the whole. The total number of different metres is twenty-three;¹⁷ part I, in proportion to its extent, contains an extraordinarily large number, not less than nineteen, distributed over 132 verses; in part II there are nine metres to 1,119 verses, and in part III four metres to seventy-two verses. It is evident from this familiarity with metrical writing that the author of the three medical treatises was well versed in Sanskrit composition. Although the substance of part II, which is a compilation, is not his own original composition, certain portions of it may well be his own contribution, not only the ten introductory verses, but also a number of scattered stanzas.¹⁸ In contrast with the treatise in part II, the treatises in parts I and III do not consist of compilations from earlier sources, but are rather original compositions.

v3.c42.s2.2

The author of parts IV–VII was not conversant with scholarly Sanskrit; these treatises are written in a mixed type of language. A considerable portion is in prose, and

v3.c42.s2.3

whatever is in metrical form, is entirely in the easy śloka metre. The surviving fragment of part VII is entirely in prose; the only portion of part VI that is metrical is the charm in seventeen verses. Part V, on the other hand, is entirely in verse, and is so part IV, with the exception of its five introductory lines, which are in prose.

v3.c42.s2.4

Part I opens with a flowery description of the Himālayas, where a group of munis reside, interested in the names and properties of medicinal plants.¹⁹ Mentioned by name are the following sages: Ātreya, Hārīta,²⁰ Parāśara, Bhela, Garga, Śāmbavya,²¹ Suśruta, Vasiṣṭha, Karāla, and Kāpya (7–8). Suśruta, whose curiosity is aroused by the particular plant, approaches muni Kāśirāja,²² enquiring about the nature of this plant. Kāśirāja, granting his request, tells him about the origin of the plant, which proves to be garlic (laśuna), its properties and uses (9–43). Kāśirāja’s exposition on the subject is called the laśunakalpa, as taught by the ancient sages.

v3.c42.s2.5

A small tract on miscellaneous subjects follows. It contains verses on the digestive fire (agni; 44–51),²³ some rasāyana formulae (52–54), technical rules about the proportions of the ingredients of compound medicines (55–59), a vājīkaraṇa formula (60), and a rasāyana recipe attributed to Agasti (61–68).

v3.c42.s2.6

Next come sections devoted to eye lotions (āścyotana; 68–86), face plasters (mukhalepa or vadanapralepa; 87–105), collyria and pastes for the eyelids (añjana, vidālaka;²⁴ 106–111), remedies against baldness and grey hair (khālitya and palita; 112–120), and recipes against cough, especially cough caused by deranged vāta (121–132).

v3.c42.s2.7

Part II, which opens with a salutation addressed to the Tathāgatas, contains, as stated by the author, the Nāvanītaka,²⁵ a standard manual (siddhasamkarṣa), containing the foremost formulae of the great sages, made up by them of old (1–2). It was originally divided into sixteen chapters (adhyāya), the headings of which are enumerated in the introductory verses (4–9). The introduction ends with the recommendation not to transmit the Nāvanītaka to anyone without a son, a brother or a disciple.

v3.c42.s2.8

Chapter one (11–107; on cūrṇayogas according to the introduction and the colophon) contains recipes for powders (cūrṇa), linctuses (leha) and pills (guṭikā); chapter two (108–260) deals with medicated ghees (ghṛta), and chapter three (261–403) with medicated oils (taila).

v3.c42.s2.9

The contents of chapter four (miśraka; 404–617) are of a miscellaneous nature: two recipes against vātarakta (404–405), four recipes against āmātisāra (406–412), four recipes for mahāsamgrāhika preparations²⁶ (413–417), a formula for a styptic (sthāpana) to be employed in haemorrhagic conditions (raktapitta) and abortions (pracyutagarbha) (418–425), four formulae against pravāhikā (426–430), twenty formulae against cough (kāsa) (431–468), five formulae against hiccup (hikkā) (469–473), eight formulae against cough (474–483), two formulae against a wide range of diseases (484–494), six formulae against fevers (494–505), two formulae against various disorders (505–508), five formulae²⁷ against diseases of the head (śīrṣaroga) (508–521), three formulae against coryza (pratiśyāya) (522–524), four formulae against toothache (dantaśūla) (525–531), six formulae against diseases of the ears (karṇaśūla) (532–542), formulae against some skin diseases (542–569), four formulae against sidhma (569–574), seven formulae against strangury (mūtraḳrcchra) (575–584), a formula against epistaxis (chardi) (593–597), three formulae against morbid thirst (tṛṣṇā) (598–602), six formulae against urinary disorders (prameha) (603–608), four formulae against erysipelas (visarpa) (608–613), and three formulae against morbid pallor and jaundice (pāṇḍu and kāmalā) (614–617).

v3.c42.s2.10

Chapter five (618–648) contains formulae for enemas (basti), 28 and chapter six (715–784) rasāyana formulae. Chapter seven (785–813) is about gruels (yavāgū). Chapter eight (814–817) is concerned with aphrodisiacs (vṛṣya), chapter nine (848–890) with collyria (añjana), and chapter ten (891–916) with hair dyes (keśarāga). 29

v3.c42.s2.11

Chapters eleven (917–949), ten (950–967), and eleven (968–976) 30 describe the kalpas of harītakī, śilājatu, and citraka.

v3.c42.s2.12

Chapter fourteen (1010–1119), which is incomplete, is about the treatment of children’s diseases (kumārabhṛtya). Chapters fifteen and sixteen, missing in the MS, were, according to the table of contents at the beginning of part II, about the treatment of barrenness (vandhyācikitsita) and disorders in pregnant and nursing women (subhagācikitsita).

v3.c42.s2.13

Part III is a fragment of a formulary, the contents of which correspond to chapters one to three of part II. It contains formulae arranged according to the type of preparation, but this arrangement is inconsistent in the preserved portion. The preparations are mixed up: oils (1–4; 5–9; 10–14; 36–53), a powder (15–19), linctuses (20–24; 61–62), a ghee (25–36), liniments (lepa; 54; 55–56; 65), boluses (modaka; 57–60), and pills (63–64; 66–72).

v3.c42.s2.14

Parts IV and V contain two short manuals of Pāśakakevalī, or cubomancy, i.e., the art of foretelling a person’s future by means of the cast of dice. Part IV is a practically complete treatise on this art, while the manual in part V, quite independent of that in part IV, is very fragmentary.

v3.c42.s2.15

Parts VI and VII contain two different portions of the same text, the Mahāmāyūrī Vidyārājñī, a Buddhist dhāraṇī that protects against snake-bite and other evils. 31

v3.c42.s2.16

Medical authorities mentioned in parts I–III are: Agasti, 32 Agastya, 33 the Aśvins, 34 Ātreya, 35 Bhela, 36 Brahmā, 37 Bṛhaspati, 38 Cyavana, 39 Dhanvantari, 40 Garga, 41 Hārīta, 42 Janakeśvara, 43 Jīvaka, 44 Kāṅkāyana, 45 Kāpya, 46 Karāla, 47 Kāśirāja, 48 Kāśyapa, 49 Keśava, 50

v3.c42.s2.17

Māṇibhadra, 51 Mārkaṇḍeya, 52 Nārāyaṇa, 53 Nimī, 54 Parāśara, 55 Śaiveśvara, 56 Śakra, 57 Śāmbavya, 58 Suprabha, 59 Suśruta, 60 Svayambhū, 61 Uśanas, 62 Vāḍvali, 63 Vāsava, 64 Vasiṣṭha, 65 and Viśvāmitra. 66

v3.c42.s2.18

Hoernle’s edition of the Bower MS is extensively annotated. A large part of the notes to parts I–III is devoted to parallels of the formulae in other treatises and the search for possible sources. P. Cordier contributed to these investigations and some important additions to Hoernle’s discoveries are owed to his intimate knowledge of the medical literature. 67 J. Jolly 68 also added parallels to Hoernle’s early annotated translation.

v3.c42.s2.19

Twelve passages are found in the Bhelasaṃhitā, 69 three of which only are explicitly attributed to Bhela. These twelve passages, containing recipes, are: 70 (1) II.43–55 (ayorājīyacūrṇa) = Ci.17.33–45 (ayorājīya); (2) 165–169a (rasāyanikaghṛta) = Ci.4.34cd–38ab (rasāyanīyasarpis); (3) 202–203 (daśāṅgaghṛta) = Ci.5.17–19 (daśāṅgaghṛta); (4) 329–330a (sahacarataila) = Ci.24.32a–33 (sahacarataila); 71 (5) 337–343 (madhuyaṣṭikataila) is closely related to Ci.4.79–90 (śatapākamadhukataila); (6) 407–408 (a formula against āmātīsāra) = Ci.20.27cd–28); (7) 409–410 (idem) = Ci.10.6–7; (8) 411–412 (idem) = Ci.10.8–9; (9) 474–479 (a recipe against cough) = Ci.20.26cd–32 (475 is more distantly related to Ci.20.27cd–28); (10) 534b–537a (a recipe against karṇaśūla) = Ci.21.53–55; (11) 642–644 (tailādyabasti) is related to Si.8.60–62; (12) 803–804, a mantra to be recited after taking the bhelī yavāgū (802), is found at Bhela Sū.7.16–17, where it is not connected with any gruel, but with general rules for the preservation of health. 72

v3.c42.s2.20

It may well be that more recipes of the Bower MS would prove to derive from Bhela, if it were possible to consult a complete MS of the Bhelasaṃhitā. Three recipes of the Bower MS, absent from the Tanjore MS of the Bhelasaṃhitā, are attributed to Bhela in Candraṭa’s Yogaratnasamuccaya: 73 II.280–286 (balātaila), 399–401 (gaṇḍamālāyoga), and 1059–1060 (lākṣādisarpis).

v3.c42.s2.21

A considerable number of formulae from parts I–III of the Bower MS form part of the Carakasaṃhitā, although Caraka is never mentioned, nor Agniveśa. These formulae are: 74 (1) II.11–13 (tālisācacūrṇa) = Ca.Ci.8.145–147 (tālīsādyacūrṇa); (2) 14–17 (śāḍavacūrṇa) = Ci.8.141–144 (yavānīṣaḍava); (3) 24a = Ci.5.92cd; (4) 25–26 (vardhamānaka-cūrṇa) = Ci.8.103–104; (5) 29–34 (mātuluṅgaguṭikā) = Ci.5.79–84 (hiṅgvādi-cūrṇaṃ guṭikā ca); (6) 133–136 (tiktakaghṛta) = Ci.7.140–143 (tiktaka-ṣatpalaghṛta); (7) 137–143 (mahātiktakaghṛta) = Ci.7.144–150 (mahātiktakaghṛta); (8) 150–151 (ṣatpalaghṛta) = Ci.5.147–148 (kṣīraṣatpalaghṛta); (9) 152 (tryūṣaṇaghṛta) = about the same as Ci.5.65cd–66ab (tryūṣaṇādighṛta); (10) 153–154 (vāsāghṛta) is related to Ci.5.126–127 (vāsāghṛta); (11) 155–157 (cāṅgerīghṛta) = Ci.14.110–112; (12) 169–176 (śaramūlīyaghṛta) = Ci.21.24cd–33ab (bṛmhaṇī-guṭikā); (13) 188–200 (cyavanaprāśaghṛta) = Ci.11.62–74 (cyavanaprāśa); (14) 383–385 (jvaraharānuvāsanataila) = Ci.3.250–251; (15) 386–389 (anuvāsanataila) = Ci.14.131–134; (16) 460–462 = Ci.5.123–125 (drākṣādyaghṛta); (17) 484–490 (prasthavireka) is related to Ci.5.154–160 (dantīharītakī); (18) 491–493 (madhvāsavayoga) = Ci.6.41–44 (madhvāsava); (19) 494–495a = Ci.3.206–207ab; (20) 496b–499a = Ci.3.200cd–203ab; (21) 603 (pramehapaśamanayoga) = Ci.6.26; (22) 645–649 (picchābasti), a recipe found in Ci.10, according to Hoernle, but absent there; 75 (23) 742–743 = Ci.13.30–31 (medhyarasāyana); (24) 745–748 (pippalīprayoga) = Ci.13.32–35 (pippalīrasāyana); (25) 749–752 (dvitīyapippalīprayoga) = Ci.13.36–40; (26) 819 = Ci.23.18 (vṛṣya śatāvarīghṛta); (27) and 28) 844b–846a = Ci.21.46–47 (vṛṣyamāṃsa and vṛṣyamāṃsayoga); (29) 957–967a (śilājatukalpa) = Ci.13.48–65 (śilājaturasāyana).

v3.c42.s2.22

Hoernle claimed 76 that parallels of six formulae from the Nāvanītaka occur in the Suśrutasaṃhitā.⁷⁷ Nāvanītaka 407–412, a series of prescriptions against āmātisāra, also found in the Bhelasaṃhitā, is, in his view, based on Su.U.40.34cd–46, a long prescription on the treatment of āmātisāra, consisting of twenty options and a single directive statement at the end. He argued that both the Bhelasaṃhitā and the Nāvanītaka have drawn upon the Uttaratanṭra of the Suśrutasaṃhitā in their verses on the therapy of the disorder. His assertion on this point seems arbitrary; the textual disagreements plead against it, as well as the chronological position of the Uttaratanṭra.⁷⁸

v3.c42.s2.23

⁷⁷ ...

v3.c42.s2.24

⁷⁸ ...

v3.c42.s2.25

Hoernle was also convinced⁷⁹ that three aphrodisiac formulae (829–830a; 833–835a) corresponded to some verses from the Cikitsāsthāna of the Suśrutasaṃhitā (from Ci.26.27cd–34), but, in this case too, the resemblances are superficial and not convincing.⁸⁰

v3.c42.s2.26

⁷⁹ ...

v3.c42.s2.27

⁸⁰ ...

v3.c42.s2.28

P. Cordier⁸¹ advanced that Nāvanītaka 188–200 (the formula of cyavanaprāśaghṛta) goes back to Agniveśa, 277–279 (the second formula of balātaila) to Hārīta, 251–257 (the formula of bindughṛta, attributed to the Aśvins) to Kṛṣṇatreya,⁸² and III.37–52 (the formula of siddhārthakataila, attributed to Nārāyaṇa) to Śālihotra. The formula of sūkṣmelāvardhamānaka (Nāvanītaka 64–65) is, according to P. Cordier, found in chapter two of the Bṛhadvaiidyaprasāraka, and twenty-eight verses are said to occur in the Kalyāṇasaṃgraha.

v3.c42.s2.29

⁸¹ ...

v3.c42.s2.30

⁸² ...

v3.c42.s2.31

In spite of Hoernle's efforts in tracing the formulae of the Nāvanītaka in other medical works,⁸³ many of them remain unidentified.⁸⁴

v3.c42.s2.32

⁸³ ...

v3.c42.s2.33

⁸⁴ ...

v3.c42.s2.34

Some recipes from the Nāvanītaka form part of Cakrapāṇidatta's Cikitsāsaṃgraha, as indicated by Niścala.⁸⁵

v3.c42.s2.35

⁸⁵ ...

v3.c42.s2.36

One formula is found in Niścala's Ratnaprabhā.⁸⁶

v3.c42.s2.37

⁸⁶ ...

v3.c42.s2.38

A Nāvanītaka is quoted by Anantakumāra,⁸⁷ Candraṭa,⁸⁸ Niścalakara,⁸⁹ and Śivadāsasena.⁹⁰ A Nāvanītakasaṃhitā is one of the sources of the Rasayogasāgara.

v3.c42.s2.39

⁸⁷ ...

v3.c42.s2.40

⁸⁸ ...

v3.c42.s2.41

⁸⁹ ...

v3.c42.s2.42

⁹⁰ ...

v3.c42.s2.43

Parts IV and V of the Bower MS have no relevance to medicine, being works on fortune-telling, a subject belonging to the province of jyotiṣa.⁹¹ Hoernle believed it to be probable that part V is one of the numerous recensions of the work on Pāsākakevalī, the divination by dice, ascribed to the ancient sage Garga,⁹² who is known as an authority on jyotiṣa.

v3.c42.s2.44

⁹¹ ...

v3.c42.s2.45

⁹² ...

v3.c42.s2.46

Parts VI and VII contain two portions of the Mahāmāyūrī Vidyārājñī,⁹³ a well-known Buddhist charm (dhāraṇī). Part VI opens with a story about the Buddha who gives the Mahāmāyūrī spell to Ānanda in order to save the life of the young bhikṣu Svāti who was bitten by a snake.⁹⁴ The Mahāmāyūrī forms part of the Pañcarakṣā, a collection of five dhāraṇīs.⁹⁵ The version in the Pañcarakṣā is much longer than the earlier one, represented by the portions preserved in parts VI and VII of the Bower MS. The expanded version appears to have developed in the course of the fifth or sixth centuries A.D. Three of the six translations in the Chinese Tripiṭaka⁹⁶ are based on the expanded recension, while the three others show a more primitive form. The latter three belong to the fourth century A.D. Originally, the Mahāmāyūrī seems to have been a separate work, independent of the Pañcarakṣā.⁹⁷

v3.c42.s2.47

⁹³ ...

v3.c42.s2.48

⁹⁴ ...

v3.c42.s2.49

⁹⁵ ...

v3.c42.s2.50

⁹⁶ ...

v3.c42.s2.51

⁹⁷ ...

v3.c42.s2.52

The Mahāmāyūrī is mentioned in Vāgbhaṭa's Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha⁹⁸ and Soḍhala's Gadanigraha.⁹⁹ It is also referred to in Bāṇa's Harṣacarita, where the author says that it was recited when Prabhākaravardhana, Harṣa's father, was dying.¹⁰⁰

v3.c42.s2.53

⁹⁸ ...

v3.c42.s2.54

⁹⁹ ...

v3.c42.s2.55

¹⁰⁰ ...

v3.c42.s2.56

The description in part I of the assembly of sages in the Himālayas shows resemblances with the way in which the Carakasaṃhitā begins, but the composition of the group is different and the divine origin of āyurveda is not mentioned. Remarkable is the rôle played by Suśruta and his teacher Kāśirāja in the verses introducing the laśunakalpa.¹⁰¹

v3.c42.s2.57

¹⁰¹ ...

v3.c42.s2.58

A noteworthy feature of part I is this laśunakalpa,¹⁰² which occurs separately from the three kalpas in part II. Kalpas of the type found in the Bower MS constitute an essential part of Sanskrit medical lore. They usually describe the mythical origin of a particular medicinal plant, its names, properties, actions, and a variety of recipes in which the plant is an important ingredient. The laśunakalpa of the Bower MS has parallels in other medical treatises, for example the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā (U.39.111–129), Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha (U.49.161–213), Kāśyapasaṃhitā (Kalpasthāna, laśunakalpādhyāya), and Hāritasamhitā (Kalpa 4).¹⁰³ The stories about the origin of garlic vary in these texts, but all the versions connect it with the rape of the amṛta at the churning of the ocean.¹⁰⁴ The account of the Bower MS on the properties and uses of garlic shows some peculiarities which are absent from or disagreeing with other medical texts.¹⁰⁵ A garlic-festival (laśunotsava) is described (I.17–18), and a procedure which circumvents the interdiction for brāhmaṇas to make use of garlic, by making it pass through a cow (I.34).¹⁰⁶

v3.c42.s2.59

¹⁰² ...

v3.c42.s2.60

¹⁰³ ...

v3.c42.s2.61

¹⁰⁴ ...

v3.c42.s2.62

¹⁰⁵ ...

v3.c42.s2.63

¹⁰⁶ ...

v3.c42.s2.64

The harītakīkalpa of the Bower MS has parallels in the harītakīkalpas of the Hāritasamhitā (Kalpa 1) and Aśvinīsaṃhitā.¹⁰⁷ The story about the mythical origin of harītakī is told in a number of medical texts.¹⁰⁸ In the same vein as many medical treatises, the Bower MS enumerates seven kinds of harītakī.¹⁰⁹ A close parallel to the śilājatukalpa occurs in the Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.13.48–65).¹¹⁰ Other versions of a śilājatukalpa form part of a number of medical treatises.¹¹¹ The third kalpa of the Bower MS, the citrakakalpa, has almost no parallels elsewhere in medical literature.¹¹²

v3.c42.s2.65

¹⁰⁷ ...

v3.c42.s2.66

¹⁰⁸ ...

v3.c42.s2.67

¹⁰⁹ ...

v3.c42.s2.68

¹¹⁰ ...

v3.c42.s2.69

¹¹¹ ...

v3.c42.s2.70

¹¹² ...

v3.c42.s2.71

The well-known rasāyana procedure, called pippalīvardhamāna, differs in the Bower MS (II.716–737) from the related prescription found in a large number of Sanskrit treatises,¹¹³ in being more complicated and taking a much longer time for its completion. The patient is advised to take one long pepper (pippalī) on the first day, and to increase the dose for ninety-nine consecutive days by one pepper daily, resulting in an intake of one hundred long peppers on the hundredth day. Thereupon, the dose is to be reduced by one pepper each day. At the end of this course a particular diet is to be observed for twenty-one days. An alternative shortened version of the procedure is also described in the Bower MS (II.749–752: pippalīsahasra).¹¹⁴

v3.c42.s2.72

¹¹³ ...

v3.c42.s2.73

¹¹⁴ ...

v3.c42.s2.74

An important peculiarity of the Bower MS consists of its varying attitude towards the number of the doṣas. In many instances it accepts the traditional number of three, vāta, pitta, and kapha,¹¹⁵ but in a smaller number of passages it appears to accept blood (rakta) as a doṣa. A series of drugs are enumerated which cure in the rainy season disorders caused by vāta, in the autumn diseases caused by pitta, in the summer diseases brought about by blood, and in the spring diseases caused by kapha.¹¹⁶ Four compound medicines are described which respectively relieve disorders originating from kapha, blood (asra), pitta, and vāta (I.106–108).¹¹⁷ Vāta, rakta, pitta, and kapha are mentioned as the causes of diseases that may be cured by use of the amṛtataila (II.308–309). Disorders brought about by pitta, blood (asra), and vāta are also referred to (I.84–85).

v3.c42.s2.75

¹¹⁵ ...

v3.c42.s2.76

¹¹⁶ ...

v3.c42.s2.77

¹¹⁷ ...

v3.c42.s2.78

Noteworthy technical terms, occurring in the Bower MS, are: anuprayoga (II.55), after-diet, i.e., the type of food to be taken after the ingestion of a particular drug; ¹¹⁸ avabhedaka (II.512), a discharging application, for example an errhine; avakṣārī (II.91), a difficult term, taken by Hoernle to mean a lixivium, but possibly a corrupt reading; avalika, a term specifying a particular rasāyana that consists of finely powdered nāgabalā roots, stirred up in milk (II.753–758); āsu (I.55), regarded as identical with āsava; lāva rasa (II.1116); ¹¹⁹ piṣima (II.578), a paste; sasyikā (II.400), a faultless female animal; unmardana (II.1053), a liniment. ¹²⁰

v3.c42.s2.79

Nosological terms worthy of attention are: abhīlu (I.88, 100, 102); ¹²¹ akākolīna (III.62); ¹²² alāsaka (II.334 and 748); ¹²³ ālūna (II.849, 874, 876); ¹²⁴ apatantraka (II.316); ¹²⁵ bhūtagraha (II.101); ¹²⁶ īrṣyāṣandha (II.350 and 360); ¹²⁷ kacchaparoga (II.254); ¹²⁸ kākavandhyā (III.47); ¹²⁹ kaṇṭhavidālikā (II.42); ¹³⁰ katrimālā (III.4); ¹³¹ khaḍa (II.359); ¹³² khallivāta (II.392); ¹³³ koṭha (II.568); ¹³⁴ kṣakaya (II.86); ¹³⁵ kuṣṭha (II.86); ¹³⁶ nirvāhikā (II.427); ¹³⁷ paillya (II.854 and 857); ¹³⁸ parisravā (III.49); ¹³⁹ pilla (II.863 and 882); ¹⁴⁰ pilpa (I.100); ¹⁴¹ prātānaka (II.340 and 941); ¹⁴² pravāhikā (II.84, 157, 388, 429, 430, 943, 1090, 1094); ¹⁴³ upagulma (II.254); ¹⁴⁴ urodghāta (II.1099); ¹⁴⁵ urovibhandha (II.33); ¹⁴⁶ ūrdhvavāta (II.250); ¹⁴⁷ ūrūskambha or ūrūskambha (II.316, 334; 349, 357, 392); ¹⁴⁸ vardhma (II.208, 230, 272, 317, 334, 644). ¹⁴⁹

v3.c42.s2.80

Noteworthy items of the materia medica are: ¹⁵⁰ abhīruparṇī (II.129); ¹⁵¹ abhītaparnī (II.187); ¹⁵² agaja (I.25); ¹⁵³ amarajā (II.81); ¹⁵⁴ amblātaka (II.106); ¹⁵⁵ candanasārivā (II.241); ¹⁵⁶ cīḍā (II.856); ¹⁵⁷ ḍembuka (II.837); ¹⁵⁸ garmuḍī (II.887); ¹⁵⁹ grāha (II.1100); ¹⁶⁰ guḍikā (II.1035); ¹⁶¹ harita (I.111); ¹⁶² iṣṭakāpāthaka (III.65); ¹⁶³ japā (II.959); ¹⁶⁴ jhāmaka (I.90); ¹⁶⁵ jīṅgaṇī (II.1073); ¹⁶⁶ kāla (II.1103 and 1115); ¹⁶⁷ keyūra (II.536); ¹⁶⁸ kuśalaparṇī (II.796); ¹⁶⁹ māruta (I.125); ¹⁷⁰ maṣi (II.1072); ¹⁷¹ mecīka (II.415); ¹⁷² naḍa (I.72); ¹⁷³ naḍikā (II.292); ¹⁷⁴ prācīnikā (II.879); ¹⁷⁵ priyakasāla (II.397); ¹⁷⁶ rāmataruṇī (II.901); ¹⁷⁷ saurāṣṭra (II.57). ¹⁷⁸

v3.c42.s2.81

In spite of its being used in a Buddhist community, the Nāvanītaka does contain formulae in which the flesh of various animals is prescribed as an ingredient. ¹⁷⁹ Moreover, persons making a habit of the use of alcoholic drinks are not looked down upon. ¹⁸⁰

v3.c42.s2.82

The Mahāmāyūrī is said to protect against a long series of grahas and diseases. The grahas mentioned are called Deva, Nāga, Asura, Maruta, Garuda, Gandharva, Kinnara, Mahoraga, Yakṣa, Rākṣasa, Preta, Piśāca, Bhūta, Kumbhāṇḍa, ¹⁸¹ Pūtana, Kaṭapūtana, and Skaṇḍa. ¹⁸²

v3.c42.s2.83

Among the evils and diseases are unmāda, chāyāgraha, ¹⁸³ apasmāra, Ostāraka, ¹⁸⁴ Kaṅkhorda, ¹⁸⁵ Okiraṇa, ¹⁸⁶ Vetālas, a long series of fevers, ¹⁸⁷ a number of other diseases, and a series of śūlas.

The author(s)

v3.c42.s3.1

The authors of the texts comprising the Bower MS are unknown. The laśunakalpa of part I is unhesitatingly ascribed to Kāśirāja by G. Hāldār, ¹⁸⁸ who also expressed as his

v3.c42.s3.2

opinion that the Nāvanītaka of the Bower MS represents an altered, Buddhist version of an original Nāvanītakasamhitā by Suśruta. ¹⁸⁹

Date

v3.c42.s4.1

Hoernle concluded that characteristics of the script of the Bower MS point to the third quarter of the fourth century A.D. as the period in which the various portions must have been written. ¹⁹⁰ Hoernle's dating is accepted by later authors, with the exception of J. Filliozat, in whose view it is preferable to adhere to a more approximate date, namely the fourth to sixth centuries. ¹⁹¹

v3.c42.s4.2

The period in which the texts composing the Bower MS may originally have been written is more difficult to determine. A number of details of the Bower MS establish any doubt that its texts were copied from an already defective, not always easily legible, and therefore probably old MS. ¹⁹² Consequently, there must have been an interval between the writing of the autograph and the copying by the scribes of the Bower MS.

v3.c42.s4.3

Some peculiarities of the MS may go back to the original author; part II, the Nāvanītaka, and part III contain glosses, indicated as such, which the author may have added to the extracts from earlier authoritative works of which his work is mainly composed. ¹⁹³

v3.c42.s4.4

Hoernle adduced arguments pointing to a succession of copies between the autograph of the Nāvanītaka and its copy in the Bower MS. He was convinced to have discovered indications testifying to a rather considerable interval, perhaps two or three centuries, between the composition of the Nāvanītaka and the copy known to us. Although his reasoning in this matter is not cogent, his conclusions may well be valid.

v3.c42.s4.5

Hoernle tried to prove that the original author of the Nāvanītaka was acquainted with the Bhelasamhitā, the Carakasamhitā before its revision and completion by Dṛḍhabala, and the Suśrutasamhitā, its Uttarātantra included. ¹⁹⁴ His reasoning was based on formulae in the Nāvanītaka that also form part of these treatises, and the references to Bhela and Suśruta in parts I and II of the Bower MS. ¹⁹⁵

v3.c42.s4.6

However, as already clearly pointed out by J. Jolly, ¹⁹⁶ Hoernle's arguments are not conclusive. The way in which Suśruta is introduced in part I, and his relationship with the muni Kāśirāja, disagree with the beginning of the Suśrutasamhitā, which, moreover, does not contain a laśunakalpa, the subject of the conversation between Suśruta and Kāśirāja. The formulae, said to be derived from the Suśrutasamhitā, ¹⁹⁷ are only distantly related to the parallels. ¹⁹⁸ To be true, Bhela is credited with some formulae, which proves that he was already a well-known medical authority, but the majority of the passages of the Nāvanītaka that form part of the Bhelasamhitā are not attributed to him and may be drawn from the floating medical tradition or early treatises, now lost. Caraka and his predecessor, Agniveśa, are not referred to at all, which pleads against borrowing from the Carakasamhitā; ¹⁹⁹ Ātreya, Agniveśa's teacher in the Carakasamhitā, is mentioned, but the formulae ascribed to him are absent from the Carakasamhitā. ²⁰⁰

v3.c42.s4.7

Consequently, it is preferable to suppose, as Jolly did, that the author of the Nāvanītaka drew upon the floating medical tradition and early treatises that have not been preserved. However that may be, the medical parts of the Bower MS (I–III) constitute the earliest collections of recipes known. They give evidence of a long medical tradition, connected with numerous ancient authorities, and may be based on similar collections or other types of medical writings antedating the composition of the saṃhitās of Caraka, Suśruta and others.

v3.c42.s4.8

Bhelasaṃhitā

v3.c42.s4.9

The Bhelasaṃhitā¹ is a comprehensive medical treatise chiefly concerned with internal medicine (kāyacikitsā). It is in many respects of the same type as the Carakasaṃhitā and may be said to belong, as the latter, to the school of Ātreya, although it also contains elements found in the Suśrutasaṃhitā, which gives it an unusual character.

v3.c42.s4.10

The text of the Bhelasaṃhitā has been preserved in a single MS, incomplete and abounding with scribal errors, kept at the Mahārāja Serfoji's Sarasvatī Mahāl Library in Tanjore. ² Several copies of this MS have been made in the course of time, ³ and three editions have appeared, based on the MS itself or its copies. ⁴

v3.c42.s4.11

A fragment of the Bhelasaṃhitā was discovered by H. Lüders⁵ among the MSS brought from Central Asia by A. von Le Coq. This fragment consists of one page from a paper MS, found in Tuyoq, ⁶ that dates from about the ninth century; it contains the text of Nidānasthāna 8.5cd to Vimānasthāna 1.22ab. The readings of this fragment are at places to be preferred to those of the Tanjore MS.

Contents

v3.c42.s5.1

The contents of the Bhelasaṃhitā are summarily listed in the middle of the Sūtrasthāna (17.7cd–9ab), and said to consist of a Sūtrasthāna in thirty chapters, a Nidāna-, Vimāna- and Śārīrasthāna in eight chapters, ⁷ an Indriyasthāna in twelve chapters, a Cikitsāsthāna in thirty, a Kalpasthāna in twelve, and, finally, a Siddhisthāna in twelve chapters. This table shows that the arrangement in sections (sthāna) and the number of chapters in each section are exactly the same as in the Carakasaṃhitā.

v3.c42.s5.2

The order of the chapters, however, seems rather arbitrary at places, due to the disorderly condition of the MS. ⁸

v3.c42.s5.3

Preserved, completely or partly, are the following chapters: Sūtrasthāna 4–23 and 25–28; Nidānasthāna 2–8; Vimānasthāna 1 and 3–6; Śārīrasthāna 2–8; Indriyasthāna 1–12; Cikitsāsthāna 1–28; Kalpasthāna 1 and 3–9; Siddhisthāna 1–2 and 4–8. Completely or almost completely extant are Sūtrasthāna 5–19, 22–23 and 25–27; Nidānasthāna 3–5 and 8; Vimānasthāna 4–7; Indriyasthāna 4–12; Cikitsāsthāna 1–2, 8, 17, 25–26 and 28; Kalpasthāna 3–6 and 8; Siddhisthāna 4–7.

v3.c42.s5.4

The Bhelasaṃhitā is more concise than the Carakasaṃhitā and uses simpler language. The verses are in śloka and anuṣṭubh metre and rather monotonous by presenting many repetitions of the same pattern. ⁹ Prose passages are found only in Śārīrasthāna 4–8. ¹⁰ The Sanskrit text is rather often grammatically incorrect. ¹¹

v3.c42.s5.5

The chapters of the Bhelasaṃhitā usually begin in the same way as in the *Carakasaṃhitā*, but they end differently, with the words ity āha bhagavān Ātreyaḥ. Unlike the *Caraka-* and *Suśrutasaṃhitā*, the work has not been revised by some later author. The preserved version, however, differs from an earlier text that once must have been current.

v3.c42.s5.6

The treatise is called after Bhela or Bheḍa,¹² one of the six pupils of Ātreya Punarvasu.¹³ Each of these pupils composed, according to the story related in the *Carakasaṃhitā*,¹⁴ a medical treatise, based on the words of their teacher.¹⁵

v3.c42.s5.7

The *Bhelasaṃhitā* is basically in the form of a dialogue between Ātreya as a teacher and Bhela as a student. The former is also designated as Punarvasu (Sū.25.5), Punarvasu Ātreya (Śā.4.2),¹⁶ Cāndrabhāga (Sū.25.1), Cāndrabhāga Punarvasu (Sū.18.1),¹⁷ and Kṛṣṇātreya (Sū.16.1; Śā.3.9; I.1.14).¹⁸ However, Bhela is not the only person receiving instruction from Ātreya. In the chapter on the detection of poison in food (Sū. 18) it is the royal sage (rājarṣi) Nagnajit¹⁹ who asks Ātreya questions during the latter’s stay in the country of Gāndhāra. Gurdālu Bhekin²⁰ is desirous of information on medical topography (Sū.13), while Suśrotar Medhāvin,²¹ who puts forward his own opinions on the treatment of disorders of the doṣas, is instructed by Ātreya in this subject (Sū.25).

v3.c42.s5.8

In a way similar to what is found in the *Caraka-* and *Suśrutasaṃhitā*, the *Bhelasaṃhitā* presents accounts of discussions among sages on important topics. Subjects of these discussions, which are less elaborate and smaller in number than in the *Carakasaṃhitā*, are the number of the tastes (Sū.12) and embryology (Śā.4). The persons taking part in the deliberations on the tastes are Ātreya, Khaṇḍakāpya, Maitreya, and a number of other sages.²² In both *Bhela-* and *Carakasaṃhitā* the meeting takes place in the Caitraratha forest. In contrast with the *Carakasaṃhitā*, the *Bhelasaṃhitā* does not attribute the views expounded to particular individuals. Nevertheless, as in the *Carakasaṃhitā*, seven different opinions are referred to, which are finally rejected by Ātreya, who proclaims the correct doctrine on the tastes.

v3.c42.s5.9

The theories refuted by Ātreya claim that the tastes are one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven in number. The report in the *Bhelasaṃhitā* differs in some details from the one found in the *Carakasaṃhitā*.²³

v3.c42.s5.10

The discussion on the question which part of the embryo develops first is also found in the *Caraka-* and *Suśrutasaṃhitā*.²⁴ The account of the *Suśrutasaṃhitā* disagrees with the versions of *Bhela-* and *Carakasaṃhitā*, which are rather similar in the composition of the assembly²⁵ and the views expressed.²⁶

v3.c42.s5.11

Authorities mentioned on other occasions in the *Bhelasaṃhitā* are Bhadraśaunaka (Sū.9.7),²⁷ Bharadvāja (Śā.4.32; 6.1–2),²⁸ and Śaunaka (Sū.9.9; Śā.4.32;²⁹ 8.3³⁰).

v3.c42.s5.12

The Sūtrasthāna of the *Bhelasaṃhitā* is in its general outlines of the same character as the corresponding section of the *Carakasaṃhitā*, though distinctive features are present and the order of the chapters does not fully agree. Some chapters bear the same names as in the *Carakasaṃhitā*: Sū.6 (navegāndhāraṇīya; = Ca.Sū.7),³¹ 7 (indriyopakramaṇīya; = 8), 8 (cikitsāprābhṛtiya; = 16), 15 (tisraisaṇīya; = 11) 16 (vātakalākaliya; = 12), 17 (daśaprāṇāyataniya; = 29), 19 (vidhiśoṇīya; = 24), 20 (arthedaśamūlīya; = 30: arthedaśamahāmūlīya), 22 (sveda; = 14), 26 (aṣṭodariya; = 19), 27 (annapānavidhīya; = 27: annapānavidhi).³² Other chapters

v3.c42.s5.13

correspond more or less to chapters of the *Carakasaṃhitā* with different names: Sū.5 (atyāśitīya) and Ca.Sū.5 (catuṣpādabhisagjītīya), Sū.9 (catuṣpādabhisagjītīya) and Ca.Sū.9 (khuḍḍākacatuspāda), 11 (samaśayanaparidhanīya) and Ca.Sū.28 (vividhāśitapītīya), 12 (ātreyakhaṇḍakāpyīya) and Ca.Sū.26 (ātreyabhadrakāpyīya), 25 (ṛtuvibhāgīya) and Ca.Sū.6 (tasyāśitīya). Chapters resembling Sū.10 (āmapradoṣīya), 13 (janapadavibhaktiya), 18 (annarakṣiya), and 23 (gāḍhapurīṣīya) are absent from the Sūtrasthāna of the *Carakasaṃhitā*.³³

v3.c42.s5.14

The Nidānasthāna describes nearly the same eight major diseases as the Nidāna section of the *Carakasaṃhitā*, in a slightly different order. However, one exception should be noticed: kāsa has taken the place of raktapitta, though the latter disorder belongs to the eight diseases dealt with in the Cikitsāsthāna, while chapter twenty of that section is concerned with the treatment of kāsa. In this regard it is very remarkable that the Tuyoq fragment of Bhela, already referred to, reads raktapitta instead of kāsa in the last lines of chapter eight of the Nidānasthāna, where the diseases described in that section are listed. This made Lüders³⁴ infer that the Tuyoq fragment represents a more original state of the text than the Tanjore MS.

v3.c42.s5.15

The Vimānasthāna of the *Bhelasaṃhitā* differs considerably from the same section of the *Carakasaṃhitā*. Two of its chapters bear titles which are identical: Vi.1 (rasavimāna; = Ca.Vi.1) and 5 (vyādhitarūpīya; = Ca.Vi.7). The subject matter of chapter three, the title of which has not been preserved, and of chapter four (rogaprakṛtiviniścaya) is related to that of chapter six (rogānika) of Caraka’s Vimānasthāna. Chapter six (ṛtuvimāna) is concerned with seasonal regimen (ṛtucaryā), described in chapter six (tasyāśitīya) of the Sūtrasthāna of the *Carakasaṃhitā*.³⁵

v3.c42.s5.16

Six of the eight chapters of the Śārīrasthāna bear names which are identical with or closely similar to those of corresponding chapters of the *Carakasaṃhitā*: 3 (asamānagotrīya; = Ca.Śā.2: atulyagotrīya), 4 (puruṣanicaya: = 5: puruṣavicaya), 5 (śarīranicaya; = 6: śarīravicaya), 6 (khuḍḍikā garbhāvakrāntiḥ; = 3), 7 (śarīrasaṃkhyā; = 7), and 8 (jātisūtrīya; = 8).

v3.c42.s5.17

Some chapters of the Indriyasthāna find their counterparts in Caraka’s Indriyasthāna: 4 (sadyomaraṇīya; = Ca.I.10), 5 (yasyaśyāvivīya; = 9: yasyaśyāvanimittīya), 6 (pūrarūpīya; = 5), 7 (indriyānīka; = 4),³⁶ 9 (gomayacūrṇa; = 12: gomayacūrṇīya), 11 (puṣpīya; = 2: puspitaka), and 12 (avākcitīya; = 8: avākśirasīya).

v3.c42.s5.18

The Kalpasthāna is comparable to the same section of the *Carakasaṃhitā*, the order of the chapters excepted.

v3.c42.s5.19

The Siddhisthāna has only one chapter with a title that is also found in the *Carakasaṃhitā*: 7 (phalamātrāsiddhi; = Ca.Si.11).

v3.c42.s5.20

The section that differs from the *Carakasaṃhitā* is the Cikitsāsthāna. Caraka’s chapters on rasāyana and vājīkaraṇa (Ci.1–2) are absent. Chapters one to nine correspond to chapters three to ten of Caraka’s Cikitsāsthāna, although their order is not completely identical; moreover, the *Bhelasaṃhitā* devotes two chapters to the treatment of fevers.

v3.c42.s5.21

Chapters of the Cikitsāsthāna of the *Bhelasaṃhitā* that are similar to chapters of the *Carakasaṃhitā*: 10 (atisāra; Ca.Ci.19), 11 (grahaṇī; Ca.Ci.15), 13 (udara; Ca. Ci.13), 14 (ūrustambha; Ca.Ci.27), 16 (arśas; Ca.Ci.14), 17 (śvayathu; Ca.Ci.12), 20 (kāsa; Ca.Ci.18), 24 (vātavyādhi; Ca.Ci.28), 27 (vraṇa; Ca.Ci.25), and 28 (pānātyaya; Ca.Ci.24).

v3.c42.s5.22

A separate chapter on kṣatakṣīṇa (Ca.Ci.11) does not form part of the *Bhelasaṃhitā*, where this disorder is merely mentioned in passing (Ci.4.73; 24.29; Sū.7.50; 8.23). A separate chapter on mūtraḳcchra (Ci.12) is absent from the *Carakasaṃhitā*, which deals with this disorder in the trimarmīya chapter (Ci.26). The treatment of visarpa and vātaśoṇita is described in one chapter in the *Bhelasaṃhitā* Ci.15), in two chapters (Ci.21 and 29) in the *Carakasaṃhitā*. The *Bhelasaṃhitā* does not present a separate chapter on udāvarta, as the *Bhelasaṃhitā* does (Ci.18); Caraka describes it in the trimarmīya chapter (Ci.26). The same applies to hṛdroga (Bhela Ci.19; Ca.Ci.26). The chapter of the *Bhelasaṃhitā* on śīroroga, karṇaroga, kaṇṭharoga and arocaka (Ci.21) has no parallel in the *Carakasaṃhitā*, which deals with these diseases in a number of chapters (Sū.17 and Sū.9: śīroroga; Ci.26: karṇaroga, kaṇṭharoga and arocaka (Ci.21) ṇṭharoga mentioned; Ci.26: The *Bhelasaṃhitā* has a separate chapter on ajīrṇa (Ci.22), described in the chapter on grahaṇī (Ci.15) of the *Carakasaṃhitā*. Nidrā (sleep) and mūrcḥā (fainting) are the subjects of one chapter (Ci.23); the *Carakasaṃhitā* deals with sleep and its disorders, as well as with mūrcḥā, in the Sūtrasthāna (Sū.21 and 24). The subjects of the chapter on plīhan and halimaka (Ci.25) are distributed over two chapters of the *Carakasaṃhitā* (Ci.13, the chapter on udara, and 16, the chapter on pāṇḍuroga). 38 Apatantraka, the subject of a separate chapter in the *Bhelasaṃhitā* (Ci.26), 38 is discussed in the Siddhisthāna (9.14) of the *Carakasaṃhitā*.

v3.c42.s5.23

Diseases discussed in the Cikitsāsthāna of the *Carakasaṃhitā* which are not dealt with in the corresponding section of the *Bhelasaṃhitā* are pāṇḍuroga (Ca.Ci.16), 39 hikkā and śvāsa (Ca.Ci.17), 40 chardi (Ca.Ci.20), 41 tṛṣṇā (Ca.Ci.22), 42 viṣa (Ca.Ci.23), 43 and yonivyāpad (Ci.30). 44

v3.c42.s5.24

One of the chapters of the Sūtrasthāna (Sū.26: aṣṭodarīya) gives an idea of the contents of the *Bhelasaṃhitā* in its original, form. It enumerates, exactly like the corresponding chapter of the *Carakasaṃhitā* (Sū.19: aṣṭodarīya), the number of varieties of a long series of diseases. 45 Some diseases occurring in this list and not described in the preserved parts of the *Bhelasaṃhitā* are arbuda, bhagandara, ślīpada, upadaṃśa, and vidradhi.

v3.c42.s5.25

The *Bhelasaṃhitā* is, as already mentioned, much more concise than the *Carakasaṃhitā*. The digressions on philosophical and religious subjects, which are characteristic of the *Carakasaṃhitā*, are absent from it. In spite of the large number of differences between the two works, the agreements between the treatises of Bhela and Caraka are close enough to warrant the conclusion that both belong to the Ātreya school of medicine.

v3.c42.s5.26

Authors and works quoting from or referring to Bhela 46 are: Anantakumāra, 47 the *Ārogyāmṛtabindu*, Aruṇadatta, 48 the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayaratnākara*, 49 the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha*, 50 Bhāvamiśra, 51 the *Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya*, the Bower MS, 52 the *Bṛhadraśarājasundara*, 53 the *Bṛhaṇṇighaṇṭuratnākara*, Cakrapāṇidatta, 54 Candranandana, 55 Candraṭa, 56 the *Carakasaṃhitā*, Caube Kyākhūbādāsa's *Ajīrṇatimirabhāskara*, Dalhaṇa, 58 Dīpacandra's *Laṅghanapathyaniṛṇaya*, Gaṅgādhara, 59 Gayadāsa, 60 Gopāladāsa's *Cikitsāmṛta*, Gulrājśarmamiśra, 61 Harṣakīrti, Hemādri, 62 Jayaratna's *Jvara-

v3.c42.s5.27

parājaya, Jejjata, 63 the *Jvaracikitsā*, the *Jvarasamuccaya*, 64 the Kairalī commentary on the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā*, 65 Kalyāṇa's *Bālatantra*, 66 Karaṇdīkar's *Nidānadīpikā*, 67 Kāśirāma, 68 the *Kāśyapasaṃhitā*, the *Lakṣmaṇotsava*, Lolimbarāja, 69 the *Mādhavacikitsā*, 70 Mānakavi, 71 the *Nāḍīcakra*, 72 Nīlamegha, 73 Niścalakara, 74 Nṛsiṃhakavi, 75 the *Rasayogasāgara*, the *Rasendrasambhava*, *Rūpanayana*, 76 the *Sahasrayoga*, 77 Śivadāsasena, 78 Sodhala, 79 the *Tantrasāra*, 80 Tisaṭa, 81 Ṭoḍara, 82 Trimalla, 83 Vācaspati, 84 Vāgbhaṭa, 85 Vijayarakṣita, 86 the *Virasimhāvaloka*, 87 the *Yogaratnākara*, 88 Yogendranātha, 89 and Yogīndranāthasena. 90 Bhela is also quoted by the unknown author of the interpolated portions of Niścalakara's *Ratnaprabhā*. 91

v3.c42.s5.28

The *Bhelasaṃhitā* was one of the sources of the *Ma'din al-Shifā'*. 92 Some scholars claim that Bhela's treatise was known to Ibn Sīnā. 93

v3.c42.s5.29

The Tibetan tradition is acquainted with Bhela as a medical authority under the name of Gziṅs-can. 94

Special features

v3.c42.s6.1

Suppression (dhāraṇa) of the urges (vega) of pitta and kapha is described (Sū.6.5); 95 the urges of hunger, thirst and heavy breathing due to exercise are left unmentioned. 96 The drinking of water before or during a meal is advised against (Sū.6.43–44). The rule concerning the use of triphalā with every meal differs from the prescription in the *Carakasaṃhitā* (Sū.8.19). 97 The main properties of the mahābhūtas are slightly different (Sū.9.15cd–16). 98 The three types of digestion are characterized by three types of eructation (udgāra; Sū.10.13–14ab). The list of disorders arising from corruption of the element rasa disagrees with Caraka's list. 99 The same applies, to a varying degree, to the lists of disorders arising from corruption of blood, fatty tissue, bone marrow, and semen. 100 The *Bhelasaṃhitā* adds a series of disorders due to abnormalities during pregnancy. 101 The disorders brought about by corruption of other constituents of the body, described by Caraka, 102 are omitted by Bhela.

v3.c42.s6.2

Bhela permits the combination of milk and fish, with the exception of the fish called cilicima (Sū.12.7–8). 103 The janapadavibhakṭīya chapter (Sū.13), concerned with feeding habits and diseases prevalent in particular regions, has no counterpart in a separate chapter of the *Carakasaṃhitā*. 104 Rainy periods are described as dangerous and having a high incidence of disease (janamāra; Sū.13.8–9). The names of fever in various animals are enumerated (Sū.13.11–13). The disease called batālīkā, unknown from other sources, is described as a risky ailment, requiring urgent treatment; its main symptom is the appearance of boils (piṭakā) in the armpits, groins, and elsewhere (Sū.13.14cd–18). 105 Bhela's ten abodes of prāṇa (prāṇāyatana; Sū.17.1–2) disagree with Caraka's list (Sū.29.3). 106 The preparation called yavāgū is said to be of eight types, while wholesome articles of food are twelve in number (Sū.17.6). The description of the heart (Sū.20.5–6) resembles that found in the *Suśrutasaṃhitā* (Śā.4.32). Eight types of sudation (sveda) are described (Sū.22), 107 whereas Caraka has a larger number (Sū.14). Disorders brought about by obstipation (gādhapuriṣa) are described (Sū.23.1–5), as well as disorders which occur when bile affects one of the seven bodily elements (Sū.25.25cd–29ab). Two varieties of pṛṣṭharoga 108 are mentioned (Sū.26.6); their names are upakṣārin and kṣārin (Sū.26.27ab). 109 Six varieties of kāca, liṅganāśa and timira are mentioned, distinguished by their colours (Sū.26.1 and 9). 110 Five causes of baldness (khālitya) and turning grey (palita) are distinguished (Sū.26. 10–11). 111 Bhela acknowledges five varieties of arbuda (Sū.26.12), 112 mukharoga (Sū.26.13), 113 bhagandara (Sū.26.14), 114 and granthi (Sū.26.17), 115 four varieties of abhiṣyandā and adhimantha (Sū.26.18), 116 klaibya (Sū.26.19), 117 eye diseases (Sū.26.20), 118 upadamśa (Sū.26.21), 119 āsrāva (Sū.26.22), 120 pipāsā (Sū.26.23), 121 rohiṇikā (Sū.26.24), 122 and arman (Sū.26.25). 123 Three types of alaī are mentioned (Sū.26.28ab) 124 and also three types of vidradhi (Sū.26.28ab). 125

v3.c42.s6.3

Seven forms of sātmya are acknowledged (Sū.26.30cd–31ab), connected with one of the six tastes or all of them. 126 Seven types of ślīpada are referred to (Sū.26.7). 127 Twenty kinds of parasites (kṛmi) are enumerated (Sū.26.31cd–33). 128

v3.c42.s6.4

Two main categories of prameha are described: prakṛtiprabhava or sahaja, and sakṛta or janmottarāja (Ni.6.1–6). 129 A variety of unmāda caused by poison is absent, as it is from the Carakasamhitā. 130 The āgantuja type of unmāda does not include mental disorders caused by intense emotions, which are classified as mada, distinct from unmāda. 131 The Nidāna chapter on unmāda denies that insanity may be the result of possession by supernatural beings (7.10). The Nidāna chapter on epilepsy (apasmāra) relates that an attack comes about when one or more of the doṣas seize the ten vessels located above the heart, and obstruct the pathway of the mind (Ni.8.3 and 8). 132 A supernatural aetiology of apasmāra is rejected (Ni.8.13). 133

First 156 of 10,515 passages. Read on

Linked texts (14)